Hazard Tree Removal STF20190008.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
112 c. i s9
kl
April 8, 2019
Mark Langford
1136 Vista Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Hazard Tree Removal
Dear Mr. Langford,
You have contacted the city regarding the removal of four hazard trees on your property located at 1136
Vista Place. The property at 1136 Vista Place does not fall into exemptions from tree cutting permitting
requirements of ECDC 18.45.030, the subject trees are located in a critical area and/or critical area
buffer. Slopes on the property to exceed 40% according to the City's LiDAR information. These areas
are consider potential landslide pursuant to ECDC 23.80.
Generally the removal of trees, or any vegetation, within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an
allowed activity, unless, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8, it involves the removal of invasive species or
hazard trees.
An arborist report prepared by Tony Shoffner Bigelow has documented that the four trees have been
repeatedly topped and were determined to by a high risk according to the attached ISA Tree Risk
Assessment forms. Mr. Shoffner recommended the trees be removed. Pursuant to ECDC
23.40.220.C.8.b.iv each hazard tree removed within a critical area or critical area buffer must be
replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. On a follow up email you noted that the trees would
be replaced with vine maples and shore pines at a ratio of 2:1.
An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions:
1. This approval only pertains to the four trees evaluated in the attached arborist report.
A minimum of eight replacement trees must be planted in the general vicinity noted on the
attached site plan. The replacement trees must be native and indigenous in accordance with
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. Evergreen replacement trees must be at least six feet in height as
measured from the top of the root ball and deciduous trees must be a minimum of one —two
inches diameter at breast height. The replacement trees must be planted within one year of
tree the tree cutting activity.
Vine maple (Acer circinatum) and shore pine (Pinus contorts contorta) have been proposed as
replacement trees. Either of these tree species would be appropriate. Alternative species must
be approved by the City of Edmonds.
I Stumps of the tree cut must be left in place to provide slope stability and prevent erosion.
4. Replacement trees must be planted within one year of removal of the hazard trees. Please
notify the City once the replacement trees have been replanted for an inspection.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov, or 425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
i
Kernen Lien
Environmental -Programs Manager
Encl: Shoffner Consulting Arborist Report dated March 26, 2019
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Forms
Site Plan
Langford March 28, 2019 Email
SHOFFNER CONSULTING
6741 NE 182ND ST. UNIT C401 KENMORE, WA 98028 MOBILE:(206)755-9407 EMAIL: TONY@TONYSHOFFNER.COM
March 26, 2019
Mark Langford RECEIVED
1136 Vista Place
Edmonds, WA MAR 27 2019
98020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COUNTER
RE: Tree Condition Evaluations - 1136 Vista Place.
Mark:
This report is provided to address the City of Edmond's requirements for the removal of
trees. Please see the Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms for each of these trees and
the site plan for the reference number of each tree.
1.0 Professional Experience and Credentials
Following is a summarization of my experience and credentials as a consulting arborist:
• Master of Science in Urban Horticulture from Center for Urban Horticulture,
University of Washington, 1996. Focus of study and thesis was nursery
production of Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) and establishment into a
natrual/urban ecosystem.
• ISA Certified Arborist since 1996.
• Tree Risk Assessment Qualified since 2012.
• Consulting arborist, 1996-present.
• Wetland Biologist, 1996-1998
• Other related experience: City of Everett Urban Forestry, summers 1989-1992;
Natural Resource Management staff and Bellevue Botanical Garden staff, City of
Bellevue, 1996-1997.
2.0 Tree Information
I conducted a level 2 basic visual assessment of the trees of concer. Following is the
information on the trees.
# Species Dbh
1 Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) 30"
2 Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) 30"
3 Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) 30"
4 Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) 36"
1
Condition and Status
Repeated topped, considerable
regrowth, some crown dieback.
Repeated topped, considerable
regrowth, some crown dieback.
Repeated topped, considerable
regrowth, some crown dieback.
Repeated topped, considerable
regrowth, some crown dieback.
r
�L
View of topped crowns.
3.0 Recommendations
Given the level of risk associated with each tree, I recommend removal.
4.0 Use of This Report and Limitations
This report is provided to address the trees of concern, their conditions and levels of
risk.
Cordially,
Tony Shoffner
ISA Certified Arborist #PN-0909A
TRAQ
3
TSA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Mark Langford Date March 26, 2019 Time
Address/Tree location - 1126 Vista Place Edmonds Tree no.1 Sheet 1 of 2
Tree species Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) dbh30" Height 25' Crown spread dia. 32'
Assessor(s)
Tony Shoffner PN-0909A, TRAQ Tools used Time frame 1 year'
Taroet Assessment
Target zone
`i
Occupancy
�•
c
c
c
E
c
Target description
g P
Target protection
« a
3
«
3 =
5 ,;
'3 =
rate
rare
$ m
u +°
c n
u
a
a
X
14
x
m
occasional
z— occasional
3—frequent
u �
; W
FH~
4—constant
a E
� a
1
House
Road
None
X
3
No
No
2
None
X
2
No
No
3
4
site i-actors
History of failures Topography Flat❑ SlopeO % Aspect W
Site changes None[] Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow Heavy rain ❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low 0 Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches[] Trunk❑ Roots[:] Describe
Load Factors
Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ Full® Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Large❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal 0 Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ❑ Dense 0 Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codominant 0 Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole% circ.
Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped 0 Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ _
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
Condition (s) of concern JQR efZ regrowth and weak connections.
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size 18" Fall Distance 20'
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificantOm
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable 0 Imminent
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems 0 Included bark 0 Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern Topped, regrowth and weak connections. Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate® Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible® Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
Target
(Target number
or or description)
Tree part
Condition(s)
of concern
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
d
c
aa
m
a
aE
3
w
o
E
m
m
c�2L
Ln
a
d
�
House
Large limbs
Weak connections
High
h
Road
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
Severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options
1 Remove tree
2
1
a.
North
Residual risk None
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ® Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None 13 Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data IZ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ®None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
1SA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Mark Langford Date March 26, 2019 Time
Address/Tree location - 1126 Vista Place Edmonds Tree no.2 Sheet 1 of 2
Tree species Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) dbh30" Height 25, Crown spread dia. 32,
Assessor(s) Tony Shoffner PN-0909A, TRAQ Tools used Time frame 1 year'
Target Assessment
Target zone
m
Occupancy
�•
a
E
'c
Target description
Target protection
3
i
i3 =
c
r
'; %
rate
1-rare
« W°
u Y
c
•V u
Q
x
2—occasional
3—frequent
c
F
9
9
H
4—constant
it E
z a
1
House
None
X
3
No
No
2
Road
None
X
2
No
No
3
4
site i actors
History of failures Topography Flat❑ SlopeO % Aspect W
Site changes None❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ® Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests /Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Windexposure Protected[:] Partial❑ Full® Windfunneling❑
Relative crown size Small❑ Medium® Large❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal O Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑
Normal ❑ Dense® Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and
Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. _ _
Codominant 0 Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole% circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped 0 Lion -tailed ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern T012(2ed.egrowth and weak connections.
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size 18" Fall Distance 20'
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable ® Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems M Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth
growth
Topped, regrowth and weak connections.
Condition(s) of concern
Conditionconcern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate® Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ® Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part
Condition(s)
of concern
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
(/rom Matrix lJ
OO
a
-
0.
c
O
T
m
r
C
YY°1
_
2
a
c
10
A
House
Large limbs
Weak connections
h
High
Road
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
Severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options
,.Remove tree
2.
3.
a
North
Residual risk None
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ® Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None 13 Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ❑Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ®None ❑Visibility ❑Access Mines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (1SA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
1,S11 Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Mark Langford Date March 26, 2019 Time
Address/Tree location - 1126 Vista Place Edmonds Tree noX-3 Sheet 1 of 2
Tree species Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) dbh30" Height 25, Crown spread dia. __ 32'
Assessor(s) Tony Shoffner PN-0909A, TRAQ Tools used Time frame 1 year'
Tareet Assessment
Target zone
a)
Occupancy
a;
E
c
Target description
Target protection
c
a
3
t
'; _
« .
"; =
rate
rare
« �°
a �,
c �.
u u
�
mv
La .xi
x
s
2—occasional
occasional
3—frequent
F
F
[=
f=
4 —constant
aE
ac$
1
House
None
X
3
No
No
2
Road
None
X
2
No
No
3
4
site Factors
History of failures Topography Flat❑ SlopeM % Aspect W
Sitechanges None❑ Gradechange❑ Siteclearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low 0 Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)El None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests /Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk[] Roots ❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ FUII IZ1 Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium® Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal0 Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ❑ Dense® Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Max. dia.
Codominant Ld Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped 0 Lion -tailed ❑
_
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Condition (s)
of concern TQDoed, regrowth and weak connections.
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size 18" Fall Distance 20'
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ SignificantlZ
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable 0 Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth
gr
Topped, regrowth and weak connections.
Condition (s) of concern
Condition of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate M Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible 0 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part
Condition(s)
of concern
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
ratio
(from
Matrix 2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
(from matrix1)
o
a
E
w
0
a
a
o
a
«
`
E
E
3
j
3
E
a
m
2
>
Y
c
7
iii
r
E
�
>
°'
>
w
Z
c
c
10
m
in
LA
House
Large limbs
Weak connections
High
Road
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk tatine matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
Severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options
,.Remove tree
2.
3.
a.
North
Residual risk None
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 0 Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None 0 Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data 0 Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ONone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
NA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Mark Langford Date March 26, 2019 Time
Address/Tree location - 1126 Vista Place Edmonds Tree no.4 Sheet 1 of 2
Tree species Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) dbh30" Height 25, Crown spread dia. 32,
Assessor(s) Tony Shoffner PN-0909A, TRAQ Tools used Time frame 1 year'
Tareet Assessment
Target zone
a
Occupancy
�•
c
c
c
E
c
Target description
Target protection
r v
3
t
3=
r .
1=
rate
1—rare
$ m
u Y
c
V u
mLLD
-0
Ep.xi
x
�
2—occasional
3—frequent
V o
H m
F
H
F
F
4—constant
a. E
= li
1
House
None
X
3
No
No
2
Road
None
X
2
No
No
3
4
site ractors
History of failures Topography Flat❑ SlopeO % Aspect W
Sitechanges None❑ Gradechange❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ❑ ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low 0 Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ FullO Wind funneling ❑
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium® Large ❑
Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal0 Dense❑ Interior branches Few[]
Normal[:] Dense® Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and
Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia.
Codominant Ca Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole% circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped 0 Lion -tailed ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Condition(s)
of concern I41212ed, regrowth and weak connections.
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size 181, Fall Distance 20
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 0
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable 0 Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems 0 Included bark 0 Cracks ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ.
Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth
gr
Topped, regrowth and weak connections.
Condition(s) of concern
Condition concern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate® Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible® Probable ❑ Imminent❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent❑
Page I of 2
Risk Cateeorization
Target
(Target number
ordesaiption)
Tree part
Conditions)
of concern
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
rating
(from
Matrix 2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
(from Matrix1)
a
a
c
o
«
w
o
E
d
m
S
>
7
3
c
in
Y
>
y
z
c
an
in
d vI
House
Large limbs
Weak connections
High
Road
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix2. Risk ratine matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
Severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Mitigation options
1 Remove tree
2.
3.
a.
North
Residual risk Nose
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ® Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None 12 Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data 0 Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ®None []Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe _
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
1 a 'Dom% 1.
rom+0 Rrew x
OJ' wof -c PROP COR , / . , ! ; !•' / / 10' SETBACK
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
1 ; , • ,: rr .,,, f J9404 SO R. SIFE SU - -
EXISTING HOUSE / 1;
r • ' TO REMAIN
,I
CONCEPTUAL HOUSE
FOOTPRINT—^ f rl', l� LOTAM
III I I 11 ,1,' ,, ' I ' � . J'• •� � / UWN ti l -y 5 1 � / o . ,1
LOT'1'� 2ise
-
1{ T T
FOURD RE d CW •` ,, Li'�i ,' pL - W,U')6T • • \ FOUND RE d DV
OS E OF CALL PROP.CAR ' 13 E OF CLLC PROP COR.
2J9 J9' \
CV
TOP 245 is EXISTING ACCESS EME , ORE IN
CR ro
TOP 212 i0P 2fi50
GROSS
AREA
:ASEMEN
AREA
NET AREA
WIDTH
DEPTH
MAX.
OVERAG
PROP.
OVERAG
MAX.
HEIGHT
EXISTING PARCEL
39,404 SF
S,OBO SF
34,324 SF
165'-0"
238'-10"
NjA
NJA
N/A
LOT 1
17,4 3 S
S,O.D 5F
12, 85 F
80'•0"
165'-0'
4,K �F
50 SF
+280.00
LOT 2
121,921 SF
I ISS'•0"
1 140'•0"
1 7,672 SF
1 2,990 SF
1 +301.25
CONCEPTUAL SITE LAYOUT
1 SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
30 0 15 30 60
ell
C
ENGINEERING
250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200
EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 28020
PHONE (425) 778-WOO
FAX (425) 778-5536
DES N:
DRAWN:
CAG
CHECK:
JOB NO:
1804690
Recelv
M ��
AR 2 7 ?019
f*vEtOP
0otjN FR ftlOFS
Kz4v%oV e
0
1
New
0
2-
3
�nr tee.
c)
L
New +y-eQ—
0
5
NX,,) +',Q-p—
i�
! p
Nye
\s��
Lien, Kernen
From:
Mark Langford<markl@intuitiveintegration.com>
Sent:
Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:03 AM
To:
Lien, Kernen
Subject:
Re: Trees
Looks like all four now.
Thanks
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 8:15 AM Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Liennedmondswa.gov> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Which two trees are you planning to remove? They need to be identified in my approval letter.
Kernen Lien I Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds — Planning Division
425-771-0220
From: Mark Langford<markl@intuitiveintegration.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 6:50 PM
To: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Trees
Hey kernen,
We are moving forward with removing at least two of the trees. The other two will depend on the neighbors
willingness to help with the cost or whether or not they need to be removed for the new home. We would like
to remove the trees right away. We will plant Vine Maples and Shore Pines at a 2/1 ratio in the SE corner of
our property for the removed trees. The new trees will conform to the city's requirements for height or width.
Thank you,
Mark Langford
Owner
Intuitive Integration,LLC
1136 Vista Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Office:425-771-4343
Cell:206-919-9473
www.intuitiveintep,ration.com
Mark Langford
Owner
Intuitive Integration,LLC
1136 Vista Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Office: 425-771-4343
Cell:206-919-9473
www.intuitiveintegration.com